I'm the go-to guy in my group of friends when it comes to horror movies, and one of my pals asked me about the Living Dead series and how many installments it had in it, etc. (he had been turning up "Living Dead" titles left and right on IMDb). So, I made up this brief essay on the topic and e-mailed it to him. Then I thought, "other people might find this interesting," so I decided to post it here. Enjoy!
A long time ago (1968) in a land far away (Pennsylvania), a thrilling saga began. But I'm here to talk about the Living Dead series. Anyway, most people think of George Romero as king of the zombie flick, and some of the people I know cite his Living Dead series as “the one that doesn't suck,” referring to other horror series natural propensity to become increasingly putrid with each sequel. Unfortunately, I then need to ask them if they've seen all of Dead films. Some would proudly proclaim that they've seen all four (now five, with the recent release of Diary of the Dead). I just laugh, shake my head, and lay this sucker on them: “There's sixteen films in the Living Dead series.” That's right, ladies and gentlemen: SIXTEEN. That's as much as Freddy and Jason's exploits combined, twice as many as Michael's, and going on three times as many as Leatherface's. You see, most people only make the connection between the five core films (the ones directed by Romero) and, occasionally, the remakes. In actuality, it's a bit more complicated than that.
While the original Night of the Living Dead was certainly Romero's baby, what most people don't realize is that he didn't write it alone. He had the help of the considerably less successful John Russo. I would think this gives him a legitimate claim to make official sequels. Now, the lawyers out there are probably screaming at me, saying “copyright law doesn't work like that!” Indeed it doesn't, but copyright laws aren't concerned here. Because of an absolutely idiotic blunder on the part of the distributors, Night of the Living Dead, one of the most sacred of modern horror classics, was never copyrighted. Aside from the ramifications concerning the payment of those involved, this also gave anyone free reign to make a sequel or remake. Surprisingly, though, in the decade that followed, no one did. At least, not on film. In 1977, Russo decided to cash in on the effort by writing a sequel novel, Return of the Living Dead. This little footnote to the franchise would have rather large ramifications eight years later. In 1978, the first sequel to NotLD, Dawn of the Dead, was released, and became a huge success. Fast forward to 1985, and a rather unusual situation presented itself. Realizing the Dead franchise wasn't so dead (*rimshot*), Russo decided he had as much a right as any to have a sequel made. Romero didn't see it that way, and after much legal finagling, they came to the conclusion that Romero would continue his own series with “of the Dead” at the end of each title. Meanwhile, Russo would release his little projects with “of the Living Dead” somewhere in the title.
Thus was born The Return of the Living Dead, an adaptation of Russo's 1977 novel, released the same year as Romero's own sequel Day of the Dead. Shades of Octopussy and Never Say Never Again. Of course, it was an adaptation of the novel in the same way Quantum of Solace is an adaptation of Ian Fleming's short story. That is, it's not an adaptation at all. The storylines don't bear even the vaguest of similarities, and while the novel played the zombie angle as straight as Romero's films, RotLD was little more than a slightly morbid comedy. And somehow, some way, it rocked. I think it may have something had to do with Linnea Quigley spending half her screentime completely naked. In the films, it is said that Night of the Living Dead was based on real events, and the Return series is therefore a sequel to these “real events”. While the original film suggested that raditation from a sattelite caused the dead to return, RotLD makes it abundantly clear that the culprit was a chemical agent known as 245 Trioxin. Also, the NotLD plague was apparently a local affair, quickly suppressed and kept under wraps from the public at large, as opposed to Romero's films, which show the same epidemic continuing wordwide over the course of around 37 years. For those who keep track of such trivialities (*coughMEcough*), we now have two divergent timelines, each stemming from the 1968 masterpiece. In 1988, Return of the Living Dead Part II was released, and firmly established “BRAINS!” as a zombie's favorite word. In 1990, Romero, feeling that he had made some errors in the script of the original NotLD (the characterization of the frustratingly useless Barbara being chief among them), did what few directors ever do: he wrote the script for a remake of his own film. While he neglected to direct, he produced the thing as well. What resulted was surprisingly forgettable (other than the appearance of Candyman Tony Todd as Ben). Lightning rarely strikes twice in the same place, I suppose.
In 1993, Return of the Living III came out and took the series in a surprising direction. That mother was DARK, man. While Romero's films have a theme of general bleakness for the future of humanity, RotLD3 was a very personal film, dealing with a young man who uses Trioxin to bring his dead girlfriend back to life. While there's plenty of gore for the hounds, this was easily the most emotionally touching film in the series, and the ending was nothing short of tragic. After this, though, the Dead series took an unusually long eight year hiatus (the longest since the NotLD-Dawn gap). In 2001, the Dead greeted the new millennium with the Russo-produced Children of the Living Dead, easily the most often forgotten installment in the series. It is somewhat unique, however, in that it is the only film thus far to have a single, easily distinguished zombie (the deceased serial killer Abbot Hayes) as the main villain of the story. It apparently takes place in the RotLD timeline, as the zombie outbreak of 1986 are referenced (it should be 1984, but it's obvious what they meant) and those of 1969 (the “true events” upon which NotLD were based) are even shown. Despite this, no mention is made of Trioxin, nor is it the catalyst for the epidemic in the movie's main story (a surviving zombie, Hayes, is responsible). Three years later, the remake of Dawn of the Dead was released. Apparently, though, it does not take place in the same continuity as the NotLD remake, as the zombie outbreak is recent and completely unknown to the characters involved. Romero, seeing that the time was right for another undead social commentary, released Land of the Dead, the fourth and, apparently, final installment in his original zombie series.
This was followed by (God help us all) two Sci-Fi original movies later that year, Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis and Return of the Living Dead: Rave to the Grave. They sucked. Let us speak no more of them. Worse than them, and most appalling to the hardcore fans, though, is the absolutely execrable Day of the Dead 2: Contagium. Most people tend not to include this in the list of films because it was made without either Romero or Russo's involvement. I include it simply because the makers had gotten ahold of Day's copyright, and thus were legally entitled to make a sequel. It sucks, though. It sucks so, SO hard. As for where it fits into the timeline, well, let's just say one of the movies MANY weaknesses is that it can't possibly fall in the same continuity as the movie it advertises itself as a sequel to! At first, I thought it may fall in RotLD's timeline, since the zombie outbreak of '68 (should be '69, but whatever) is unknown to the public and all is well. In addition, a military biological weapon is the cause of the zombie outbreak. However, the title suggests this is a bacterium or a virus, instead of a nerve agent like Trioxin. Can a nerve agent be called a contagium? The symptoms of the infected are different as well, but that's been a problem in all the RotLD movies. It may be in their timeline, or it may exist in yet a third, which it only shares with the original NotLD. The following year, 2006, saw someone FINALLY taking advantage of NotLD's public domain status for something besides selling piss-poor DVD transfers. Night of the Living Dead 3D benefited from the talent of the vastly underappreciated Sid Haig and a surprisingly solid cast of unknowns. The story tried its best to be something different from the original, and succeeded in becoming my favorite rendition of the story, despite the ridiculously cheesy 3D effects.
Figuring the franchise had been milked enough for the time being (six films in three years!), the Dead took a year off. 2008 saw the release of Romero's Diary of the Dead, which reboots his franchise, as the zombie plague is an unknown phenomenon instead of a 40-year-old crisis. The same goes for the Day of the Dead remake, also released in 2008. It does not follow from Dawn '04, despite sharing a lead actor (in another role), and stands on its own. That brings us to the present. To recap:
................Dawn78---Day85---LotD
............../
NotLD68
..............\
................RotLD---RotLD2---RotLD3---CotLD---Necropolis---RttG---Contagium
With NotLD90, Dawn04, NotLD3D, Diary, and Day08 each having a separate continuity. Now, was that so hard?
...
I need a drink.
